Shepard v. State
| Decision Date | 31 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--13,68--13 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | Readus Roscoe SHEPARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and William H. Namack, III, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Readus Roscoe Shepard, defendant below, from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
Shepard was informed against in the Lee County Circuit Court for the offense of uttering a forged instrument. Upon trial by jury he was convicted and thereafter sentenced to a term in the State Prison. From such conviction he appeals to this Court.
The only point relied upon by Shepard here is that he was not represented by counsel at the time he was allegedly identified in a police lineup before trial, and that his later identification during the trial by the same witnesses was unduly influenced by the jail identification.
In United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, the high Court held that a pre-trial lineup identification while the accused is in custody was a 'critical stage of the prosecution', and that unless intelligently waived the accused was entitled to the benefit of counsel being then present 'as at the trial itself'. The holding in Wade was qualified however by the further observation of the high Court that even if counsel were not present at the 'pre-trial confrontation' the admissibility of identification testimony at the trial would depend upon whether the trial identification was 'based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification'. It was said that determination of this question would depend upon 'various factors', the foremost of which would be 'the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act'. In the case sub judice, this would be at the time the forged check was being uttered.
The State abundantly met the test laid down in Wade.
On July 12, 1967, Shepard voluntarily left his job with B & G Metals Inc., of Ft. Myers. Certain checks of the company were discovered stolen that day. On the following day, July 13th, a man came into the office of U Save Super Market, Ft. Myers, and asked the office lady, a Mrs. Jean Wright, to cash a check. She asked him for identification and his driver's license, but he had neither. She finally directed him to sign the check and put his address on it. He replied, 'I don't know my street number', that he would have to get it from the man 'that was with him'. Leaving the check on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...conducted by the district court and that the in-court identification was independent of the pretrial identification. Shepard v. State, 213 So.2d 11 (Fla.App.1968); Tyler v. State, 5 Md.App. 158, 245 A.2d 592 (1968); State v. Cannito, 183 Neb. 575, 162 N.W.2d 260 (1968); State v. Carrothers,......
-
State v. Wisniewski
...406 F.2d 518; State v. Carrothers, 79 N.M. 347, 443 P.2d 517, 519; Tyler v. Maryland, 5 Md.App. 158, 245 A. 592, 595, 597; Shepard v. State, Fla.App., 213 So.2d 11, 12; and State v. Cannito, 183 Neb. 575, 162 N.W.2d 260, However, we must still determine whether the police procedure violated......
-
State v. Essary
...F.2d 518, 519; State v. Cannito, 183 Neb. 575, 162 N.W.2d 260, 261; Anderson v. State, Fla.App., 215 So.2d 618, 620, 621; Shepard v. State, Fla.App., 213 So.2d 11, 12; Tyler v. State, 5 Md.App. 158, 245 A.2d 592, 595, 596; State v. Carrothers, 79 N.M. 347, 443 P.2d 517, II. The rule is now ......
-
Hearns v. State, 71--80
...237 So.2d 268; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 444; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 618, and Shepard v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 11. We reverse and remand for a new Reversed and remanded. WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., and RICHARDSON, GEORGE, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. ...